Home
Articles
Photos
Interviews
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Georgia Tech Recruiting
Dashboard
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Chat
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
A question for ex players or serious fans
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="takethepoints" data-source="post: 372605" data-attributes="member: 265"><p>And, if I thought that recruiting was the only reason winning programs win, I'd agree with those studies. But I don't, except for the top 10 - 15 classes. </p><p></p><p>I don't doubt that a successful recruiting effort like Clemson has put on over the last 10 years has had positive results in terms of wins. There really is a difference between a class made up almost entirely of 4 and 5 star players and one like everyone else usually gets. But what about the difference between overall rankings for schools that recruit like we do? There I have my doubts. This comes from two sources. First, the services don't put a herculean effort into ranking players below the top ranks. Usually, the way a player is ranked can depend as much on who has made offers then on any serious evaluation. An associated problem is the "grading" system used. We have three recruits this year that are right at the cusp of being four star players. Is there any real difference between a player 247 rates at .8808 and another at .9203? My guess is there may be, but these made up scores sure don't pinpoint it, even in the aggregate. The second is the way that a small class can influence rankings; the services simply add up the stars and rank accordingly. One reason Bammer is usually at the top of the list is that they fill up every year by chasing off players who don't measure up. This is so simpleminded that I find it unbelievable. I think these concerns are bourn out by the retrospective rankings done occasionally. Here the success of the players and their teams four years up the road are taken into account and compared to the original overall rankings. Tech always gets a substantial jump in its ranking when this is done.</p><p></p><p>But, of course, I'd like to see us recruit better in the sense that we can find better athletes who can stick at Tech and are suited to our program needs. More cash thrown at that problem right away, say I. I'm not sure that would get us into the "top 30's", but we should make the effort.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="takethepoints, post: 372605, member: 265"] And, if I thought that recruiting was the only reason winning programs win, I'd agree with those studies. But I don't, except for the top 10 - 15 classes. I don't doubt that a successful recruiting effort like Clemson has put on over the last 10 years has had positive results in terms of wins. There really is a difference between a class made up almost entirely of 4 and 5 star players and one like everyone else usually gets. But what about the difference between overall rankings for schools that recruit like we do? There I have my doubts. This comes from two sources. First, the services don't put a herculean effort into ranking players below the top ranks. Usually, the way a player is ranked can depend as much on who has made offers then on any serious evaluation. An associated problem is the "grading" system used. We have three recruits this year that are right at the cusp of being four star players. Is there any real difference between a player 247 rates at .8808 and another at .9203? My guess is there may be, but these made up scores sure don't pinpoint it, even in the aggregate. The second is the way that a small class can influence rankings; the services simply add up the stars and rank accordingly. One reason Bammer is usually at the top of the list is that they fill up every year by chasing off players who don't measure up. This is so simpleminded that I find it unbelievable. I think these concerns are bourn out by the retrospective rankings done occasionally. Here the success of the players and their teams four years up the road are taken into account and compared to the original overall rankings. Tech always gets a substantial jump in its ranking when this is done. But, of course, I'd like to see us recruit better in the sense that we can find better athletes who can stick at Tech and are suited to our program needs. More cash thrown at that problem right away, say I. I'm not sure that would get us into the "top 30's", but we should make the effort. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Who won the ACC Coach of the Year Award in 2014?
Post reply
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
A question for ex players or serious fans
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top